Beam Fighters

[Alsadius (OP)]

I just managed to squeeze in a nice little laser-equipped fighter, at fairly low tech levels.

Apollo class Fighter (P)      500 tons       23 Crew       85.1 BP       TCS 10    TH 87    EM 0
8707 km/s      Armour 1-5       Shields 0-0       HTK 3      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 0      PPV 3
Maint Life 5.16 Years     MSP 26    AFR 8%    IFR 0.1%    1YR 2    5YR 24    Max Repair 43.75 MSP
Commander    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 3 days    Morale Check Required   

FAC Improved Nuclear Pulse Engine  EP87.50 (1)    Power 87.5    Fuel Use 401.06%    Signature 87.50    Explosion 17%
Fuel Capacity 1 000 Litres    Range 0.1 billion km (2 hours at full power)

10cm C3 Near Ultraviolet Laser (1)    Range 16 000km     TS: 8 707 km/s     Power 3-3     RM 30 000 km    ROF 5       
Beam Fire Control R16-TS8000 (1)     Max Range: 16 000 km   TS: 8 000 km/s     75 50 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fighter Improved Pebble Bed Reactor R3-PB10 (1)     Total Power Output 3    Exp 7%

Active Micro-Sensor AS10-R100 (1)     GPS 160     Range 11m km    Resolution 100

This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction

I managed to get a 0.1 HS sensor in, so it can spot its own targets, as well as a tiny engineering space so it can repair a laser failure on firing. Everything is squeezed to the bone to fit it all in (the exact size is 9.9908 HS), but it does work. Doesn't even need a reduced-size laser, either.

I think the loss of fighter-specific beam fire controls might not hurt as badly as we were afraid of. That BFC is 25% range, 200% speed = 12.5 tons. Even if I felt the need to jack it up to 4x speed, you can still fit that in a fighter.

[Father Tim]

Nice, yes, but that's ten times the size I'd call "little."

[Alsadius (OP)]

Nice, yes, but that's ten times the size I'd call "little."

All fighters are little

[Impassive]

Quite a thicc fighter, still props for a good low tech design

[Alsadius (OP)]

Quite a thicc fighter, still props for a good low tech design

The 250-ton engine that I designed for my FACs was a bit much. But laser ships do need to go faster, so hey, why not?

(Also, it makes my OCD happy to not have any unused space in my hangars. I don't normally manage it, but it's nice when it works out that way.)

[xenoscepter]

My only critique would be the engineering space.

I think you only need MSP for weapon failures. Also, you could get more MSP by switching to from a Fighter-Sized Engineering Bay, then adding a Fighter & Tiny Maintenance Storage Bay.

[Father Tim]

My only critique would be the engineering space.

I think you only need MSP for weapon failures. Also, you could get more MSP by switching to a Fighter-Sized Engineering Bay, then adding a Fighter & Tiny Maintenance Storage Bay.

No, the Apollo class are quite capable of blowing up on their own, with max repair of 44 and only 26 MSP on board.

[Alsadius (OP)]

The ship can still break with regular failure chances as well. At 0.1% on a cheap fighter I'll take my chances, especially since it has enough MSP to survive anything but an engine failure, and it won't ever be outside for very long. But it's a risk. It actually becomes a somewhat meaningful risk if you get rid of engineering spaces entirely - with none, there's a 1.4% failure chance per interval.

I tested the changed maintenance setup that you suggested. That gets me to 70 MSP with a 0.3% failure chance per interval. It even drops the cost of the ship a bit, from 85.1 to 84.3 BP. I've changed it accordingly.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

You need to increase the range on the BFC. That fighter will be largely ineffective against a force that moves 4000 km/s and has better reaction than it, (unless reaction rules changed and I didn't notice.)

As a general rule of thumb, you should always look at at (expected enemy speed * 5) as the minimum presumed beam engagement range.

This is the main reason I mostly stopped using Gauss fighters.

[xenoscepter]

From: The DeadlyShoe

You need to increase the range on the BFC. That fighter will be largely ineffective against a force that moves 4000 km/s and has better reaction than it, (unless reaction rules changed and I didn't notice.)

As a general rule of thumb, you should always look at at (expected enemy speed * 5) as the minimum presumed beam engagement range.

This is the main reason I mostly stopped using Gauss fighters.

Or you could just go faster?

Your rule of thumb assumes the enemy is faster, but also assumes that they have better range than you too. Otherwise the speed is irrelevant if they have to stay within your firing range to shoot back. Conversely if you out speed them, you can just control the engagement range. Speed & Range is more of an "and / or" thing rather than a "one or another" thing.

EDIT: Checked the design again, saw what you were talking about. My bad.

[Doren]

You need to act faster or the speed doesn't matter. Enemy will just get the move after you and move out of range

[xenoscepter]

@Doren

 - Good catch! I forgot about the initiative bit, but that's more of a commander thing then a design thing.

[xenoscepter]

BTW

TheDeadlyShoe is still right about your Beam FCS range, 20,000 km is minimum for anything that isn't Final Defensive Fire.

[Jorgen_CAB]

In general I'm not much for beam fighters unless they are used as interceptors to engage enemy unarmed scouts or commercial ships. Any other larger ship with a decent set of weapons just have to sneeze in the fighters basic vicinity and they die.

The problem with beam fighters is their paper thin armour and vulnerable internal components.

[Alsadius (OP)]

I thought initiative was mostly random, no? (I don't have much combat experience tbh)

Also, what's this 20,000 km rule? Is that just five seconds times the presumed enemy speed of 4000 km/s, or is it a hard rule?